Bob's column, in reply to some moralizing posts re his admission to "scamming" (my word, not his) a free breakfast buffet, reinforces what I enjoy and respect most about Bob ... he simply lays out his views in a relatively balanced fashion, like it or not.
I'm not above taking exception to someone else's behavior ... but I trust that I generally reserve that for actions with greater significance/consequence. On the whole, I imagine most here engage in some rationalized activity that might draw raised eyebrows from others.
Bob's greatest "crime", as I see it, is simply engaging his audience perhaps a little too familiarly at times.
I monitor my own conduct by keeping the abbreviated caution "FBC" in the forefront of my mind. ("familiarity breeds contempt").
"Familiarity" is conducive to generating the empathy between individuals that leads to constructive social bonding and exchanges. I take pains to pepper my posts with personal data and incidents to that end.
However, familiarity is also a means by which to compare how various situations and experiences are handled by another vs. one's self; where there are differences, there's room for contempt.
Contempt is typical when the gut reaction is, "I'd never do that! -- this person really has poor judgment" (substitute your own stronger words). Contempt has it's place. But in social circumstances, more often than not it's a barrier to an optimal outcome and there's little redeeming about it.
Each person is entitled to handle contempt as they see fit. I try to keep mine in check where possible -- the occasions where it's worked to my benefit are far outnumbered by those where it's been a detriment.
